recursivity/reflexivity=dynamic??
Dot Robbins (drobbins who-is-at sprintmail.com)
Fri, 15 May 1998 21:00:15 -0500
Dear Friends,
First of all, I sincerely look forward to meeting some of you at ISCRAT
in Denmark. Well, this note reflects a constant problem I face, and it
is written as a question in general; also it is written as a result of
thoughts by Eugene, Diane, Dewey, Jay: I am wondering how any type of
"looping" principle (be it recursivity, reflexivity, environmental
afferentiation, etc.) can remain dynamic, based within the overwhelming
"passive" structures of most schooling?; and, I am asking for your help
regarding the principles of "interaction," often discussed within
constructivism. It is clear that since much understanding of "community"
has disappeared within the last few years, there is an attempt to
recapture "community" within the classroom via interaction. Yet, I feel
a sense of unease, as well as a static understanding of various terms
such as the ZPD, constructivism, etc. related to the classroom. Of
course there are many ZPDs, yet the initial focus on real, individual
"potentiality" seems left out of many of today's classrooms (as well as
neglecting the Vygotskian focus on individual "personality
development"). Certainly ideas such as "legitimate periperal
participation" are working for me on an every day basis; and books like
"Dynamic Assessment" (Lidz, 1987) have pushed me to do things such as
show beginning Spanish students the test on a transparency before the
test--with very postive feedback. Then there is excitment with new ideas
such as the "Zone of Proximal Adjusting" (by Tim Murphy), creating a
new, fluid feel of movement. There is also a positive feel with terms
such as "Construction Zone" (Newman, Griffin and Cole); and the "Zone of
Free Movement" (Jaan Valsiner), etc. However, my general question
regards the transition from the classroom to everyday life, where
"community" of the classroom via the ZPD/ZPA or constructivism
etc.,transcends schooling, affecting and changing real life.In other
words, how much of the dynamic potentiality, and dynamic interaction is
transferable from school to life? Much of Vygotskian thought and
constructivist thought remains solely in the classroom, or? My question
is: can there be a dynamic, asymmetrical "revolution" in education
without a real "parameter collapse"??? I will give my own example of
what education meant in Germany many years ago (I seriously doubt that
it could be found in most, or any, German universities today, since many
German universities are turning to the American model in some respects).
In my very early twenties, with not one word of any foreign language, I
found myself in Germany. After a couple of years, I applied to study at
a German university, primarily for tax purposes (students did not have
to pay much in taxes, even if they had a regular job). Within the
humanities (not sciences), no tests were given within regular courses,
only after two years of study were offical tests given (two weeks
written, two weeks oral). Then it was "all" or "nothing". So, seminars
were great...no attendance policy, no homework, etc.However, one needs
to know that a German high school leaving exam, Abitur, is the
equivalent of two years of American college; sometimes the equivalent of
a B.A. degree. Therefore, no need for general education courses.
Students would select a topic to prepare in most seminars, read about 20
books, prepare a ten to twenty page paper, and present the results to
the class, with questions asked by everyone. Grades were not given
unless asked for...a sheet of paper was issued by the professor with
"excellent", "very good", "good", etc., if the student so chose. A
student then collected approx. 12 of these pieces of paper (Scheine),
and presented them to the examination board in order to apply for formal
testing every two years. Interaction was not built into the classroom,
and most of the professors had no understanding of making the class fun,
or motivating. The professors were so intellectual and well read that
attending class was considered to be a privilege in many cases (not
always). The motivation was within the subject matter, not within the
mode of entertainment of the professor. The classroom was not a place
for community, but students used friendships made in the classroom to
build a community outside, discussing topics usually all afternoon,
often into the late evening. Maybe at one point the professor would join
in for coffee or wine. Outside the classroom, discussions, and a real
sense of "personality formation" were fostered within the student
"community"; teachers did not design projects or modes of interaction,
and in these communities, students were in charge of things. Now, most
students at university in Germany were older. This was during the early
1980s. The discussions were dynamic, inspiring, active, asymmetrical,
and experiential. Once the report was given within the semester,
students were actually free to leave, and only attend the seminar if
they wanted to. The classroom sessions were most interesting, since
students selected topics they wanted to research. However, during the
semester, many of us would go to Greece or Italy, etc. Personally I
learned more from that type of education and freedom than I could ever
explain. Now, I am not totally praising the German system, as a student
was left to his or her own devices to graduate (i.e. no advisors,
counseling, etc.), and many students simply gave up because of the lack
of structure. This is true today as well. However, it was real learning
for learning's sake...of course, the German government was most generous
with grant money. Years later, it was so inspiring to read about
Vygotsky's education, which at one point was private tutoring by Solomon
Aspiz, a scholar in his own right. Aspiz would offer information (which
had to be assimilated, memorized, etc.) fostering the socratic method.
Then, the understanding of community and interaction took place with
Vygotsky and his friends (as teenagers) re-enacting debates of
historical figures, dividing up the roles, for example, or reciting
memorized poetry; or establishing "Days and Ages", etc. All of this
learning was not viewed as an end in itself, but as a beginning point of
individual creation. The concept of "disobjectivation" was in place
("the problem of grasping thought and life in their dynamic and "open"
form before they are "finished"...Kozulin 1990, Vygotsky's psychology: a
biography of ideas, p. 22). The ZPD/ZPA was indeed a feel of developing
one's own potential; yet, the competent professor was truly looked up
to, and "memorizing" and "imitation" were viewed as a prerequisite for
authentic creation. For Vygotsky, there was a sense of affordance of
"space".....Kris Gutierrez, et al. calls it "official and unofficial
space"; Claire Kramsch (borrowing from Homi Bhabba) calls it the "third
space"; Jean Delacour speaks of the "internal space" (which includes
processes independent in the unconscious state which interact,
communicate); Vygotsky used the "sub"-"un"-"pre"-"non"-conscious as the
origin of creativity...perhaps it is the return to the unconscious,
where much cannot be explained in terms of conscious understanding. I am
often struck by my understanding of Vygotsky having explained much of
the "conscious" element of thought and speech via the un-conscious;
while Chomsky, for example, tends to explain the un-conscious elements
via conscious linguistic structures. An active, dynamic, asymmetrical
ZPD/ZPA needs to have competent teachers and peers to "lift" students up
to their potential; then the students can "lift" themselves up to higher
levels outside of the classroom, or? isn't the important thing to
recapture the feel of "self-regulation" (on a personal level), and
"community" (on a social level)? and how can this spill over into life
after school? I only had a short breath of freedom within education
while in Germany (something I never experienced once in the United
States, which was perhaps my fault), and it was the greatest freedom one
could have. There was very little sense of "ego" (as I see it today),
with people wanting to communicate, recognizing the "other", not just
selling "me". It was a feel of being in touch with the core of life....I
am wondering if anything like that can be recaptured in today's world?
It appears that much of what is stated in theory is often "jargon",
which could become linguistic double talk. So, can one revolutionize
education within the current structures? It is strange, but when I
reflect upon my few years of educational freedom, I has beyond the
Cartesian hold on dualism...for a short time...all of which is now lost
in history.I have found no tools which would help me pass on the joy I
experienced to my students...and I rarely see them filled with joy from
learning. Thanks for your patience. Don't mean to be pessimistic, but it
feels that today learning is not for learning's sake; however, education
appears to be for education's sake. Best, Dot